I will let the posts speak for themselves....http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...Dont hesitate in going further back than that to see the lying denials...time and time and time again....And, oh...by the wayNO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION....

Just so we can get on the same page, what alternative theory are you proposing? The most common claims the entire fate of humanity hinges on an argument over a pomegranate between a naked lady and a talking snake.

<quoted text>One of your better traits, I give you props for being strong enough to admit you were wrong, most don't want to admit this because they actually think it even means anything. What Adolf was, really has no bearing on what other people do, it's truly a non-issue, as are all such historical characters. Stalin too, a deconverted christian, who eliminated religion in a very heinous manner simply because the threatened his government's power, for example. It has no bearing on how other atheists and deconverts are, it has no bearing on christians either, he's a perfect example because he was ... everything. So if one person can make a whole group look bad, Stalin screwed humanity forever.

We must always remember the hitlers the Stalins the slave owners of our past if we do not it will happen again. The killing of the minority to quench the blood thirst of a majority must not be aloud no matter who it is.

<quoted text>We must always remember the hitlers the Stalins the slave owners of our past if we do not it will happen again. The killing of the minority to quench the blood thirst of a majority must not be aloud no matter who it is.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

<quoted text>Creationism is not a theory, it is simply a blind assertions. A scientific theory requires at least a working model, which creationism does not have. this working model has to be built from facts and ideas which were brought to light by facts, like the fact that things evolve leading eventually to us formulating a workable model of how things evolve, why they do, and what impact it has on them. Creationism doesn't have that. The data has to be follow, not forced, it also has to be testable, repeatable, and demonstrable, some combination of the three or preferably all three. Creationism has none of that. A theories mechanisms and laws must be well defined, no ambiguity, and must be understood by everyone the same way. Good luck getting that from any creationism supporter.The theory of evolution was formulated to explain the fact of evolution, it contains a workable model that has predictive capabilities which assist other branches of scientific research, and is indispensable to all branches of medical science today.Creationism has three words, "god dun it," and that's it. It's neither beneficial, testable, reproducible, or in any way helpful, it's a non-answer to a concept that's not even qualified to be called a hypothesis, it's not even a guess, it's nothing.

<quoted text>When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

<quoted text>So when you say deterioration, you mean genes just disappear, not that they get scrambled or randomized? Where does mutation fit in then? Does it result in equivalent information? If not, does the lost information become 'junk' or just vanish?I have so many questions! It's okay if you can't answer all of them, not everyone's a creation biologist.

You can keep chasing yout tail and getting lost in your own evolutionary terms and taking strolls down the path to evasion. You may have many questions and you sit along side your evolutionary researchers that also have more questions than answers. Does that make them idiots or do you just get jollies by being a hypocrite?

I don't need to get sucked into the mire of evolutionary conundrums to establish that creos got it right and you got it wrong.

Deteriorating genomes do not result in poofing into non coding dna and if you were as smart as you would like to think you are you would already know that and that your questions are irrelevant to the point, 1 of 6, I am making.

Here is another example apart from deletion.

"It therefore seems likely that the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids. This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees."

The point being creationists could predict non coding dna having function and evolutionists apparently could not. Evos have just added to the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past and the libraries of outdated and wrong information.

It contains docking sites where proteins can stick and switch genes on or off. Or it is read and ‘transcribed’ into molecules of RNA. Or it controls whether nearby genes are transcribed (promoters; more than 70,000 of these). Or it influences the activity of other genes, sometimes across great distances (enhancers; more than 400,000 of these). Or it affects how DNA is folded and packaged. Something.

According to ENCODE’s analysis, 80 percent of the genome has a “biochemical function”. More on exactly what this means later, but the key point is: It’s not “junk”. Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA has a function, and more and more solid examples have come to light [edited for clarity - Ed]. But, many maintained that much of these sequences were, indeed, junk. ENCODE says otherwise.“Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more,” says Tom Gingeras, one of the study’s many senior scientists.

And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion.“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”

So you can keep your questions on genomic noise and mutation fixation, which you likely can't answer yourself with more than a maybe. Understand that the fact that evos got their claims around non coding dna wrong has been established and they could make no prediction is also established.

<quoted text>When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

As slavery was a fact of the day.Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

I've never owned and will never own a slave. I've also never built an ark hung anyone on a cross killed my children for disobedience stoned anyone (with a rock) beaten my wife owned a donkey fled with my people from Egypt or raped nor do I think rape is ok.

I do not agree with slavery or genocide. The things Moses set into law where brutal to say the least the things God told them to do I don't agree with. God didn't and isn't going to ask my opinion before he does or says things. So what do you want me to do about it?

<quoted text>Just so we can get on the same page, what alternative theory are you proposing? The most common claims the entire fate of humanity hinges on an argument over a pomegranate between a naked lady and a talking snake.What's yours?

The ancients book that told evolutionists that the universe had a beginning, the moon was created after the earth, plants were created before the creatures of the sea, then land animals, then mankind. The one that evolutionists support in the majority. That is the one I am talking about.

Some of us at least have a paradigm to support or falsify. Evolutionists can make it up as they go along and have a virtualy unfalsifiable theory.

I suppose you think you know all about deities and what they can and cannot do and what it would have been like to have a God, an alien non organic life form, getting about. I suppose you think these scribes and intelligent men would speak to a talking serpent just because they wanted to be mocked do you? The fact that something like that appears in such a literary masterpeice can only be because that is what eventuated. Be it ventriloquism or whether it was fairly common place for spirit forms to take on other forms, I can't say. The sons of God also took on human form against Gods will so it was an ability al of the sons of God have, including Satan.

You all suggest we are not special nor alone in the universe yet you buck at the mention of an alien life form. Just because 'It/God' is not organic and we cannot explain its abilities does not mean IT does not have abilities we cannot explain. That is the height of arrogance.

Even the evocation of a deity sounds more plausible than suggesting life poofed itself into a complex factory of reproduction.

Regarding the Mayan calendar, I think it goes back to a time just after the flood. I believe there were giants on earth in the days before the flood and they knew about earth cycles, their science was accurate and they were renown men who lived to be hundreds of years of age. Noah had a son Ham who had a son Cush who begat Nimrod and I believe he spread his kingdom throughout the world. I believe the altar that Noah built just after the flood remained a part of Nimrods kingdom and misguided religious practices in the form of pyramids. The calander was accurate and Nimrod spread his religion and science which reached Mexico by ocean current travel from China and on through South America by the chosen priest. We all know that they said they were trying to make a name for themselves lest they would be scattered upon the face of the whole earth (GEN 11) and the LORD did scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

<quoted text>You can keep chasing yout tail and getting lost in your own evolutionary terms and taking strolls down the path to evasion. You may have many questions and you sit along side your evolutionary researchers that also have more questions than answers. Does that make them idiots or do you just get jollies by being a hypocrite?I don't need to get sucked into the mire of evolutionary conundrums to establish that creos got it right and you got it wrong.Deteriorating genomes do not result in poofing into non coding dna and if you were as smart as you would like to think you are you would already know that and that your questions are irrelevant to the point, 1 of 6, I am making.Here is another example apart from deletion."It therefore seems likely that the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids. This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees."http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...The point being creationists could predict non coding dna having function and evolutionists apparently could not. Evos have just added to the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past and the libraries of outdated and wrong information.It contains docking sites where proteins can stick and switch genes on or off. Or it is read and ‘transcribed’ into molecules of RNA. Or it controls whether nearby genes are transcribed (promoters; more than 70,000 of these). Or it influences the activity of other genes, sometimes across great distances (enhancers; more than 400,000 of these). Or it affects how DNA is folded and packaged. Something.According to ENCODE’s analysis, 80 percent of the genome has a “biochemical function”. More on exactly what this means later, but the key point is: It’s not “junk”. Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA has a function, and more and more solid examples have come to light [edited for clarity - Ed]. But, many maintained that much of these sequences were, indeed, junk. ENCODE says otherwise.“Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more,” says Tom Gingeras, one of the study’s many senior scientists.And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion.“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...So you can keep your questions on genomic noise and mutation fixation, which you likely can't answer yourself with more than a maybe. Understand that the fact that evos got their claims around non coding dna wrong has been established and they could make no prediction is also established.

Regarding the Mayan calendar, I think it goes back to a time just after the flood. I believe there were giants on earth in the days before the flood and they knew about earth cycles, their science was accurate and they were renown men who lived to be hundreds of years of age. Noah had a son Ham who had a son Cush who begat Nimrod and I believe he spread his kingdom throughout the world. I believe the altar that Noah built just after the flood remained a part of Nimrods kingdom and misguided religious practices in the form of pyramids. The calander was accurate and Nimrod spread his religion and science which reached Mexico by ocean current travel from China and on through South America by the chosen priest. We all know that they said they were trying to make a name for themselves lest they would be scattered upon the face of the whole earth (GEN 11) and the LORD did scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

I think you believe that afarensis could talk and was a biblical person. That was what the last person that spoke of begats to me had to say.

You do realize, don't you, that this is an evolution/creation debating thread. I also get sucked into talking philosophy with evos. Philosophy is much easier than science and one can chase around for years.

The biblical end of days will come at a time unexpected. I'd say the Mayan calandar thing would qualify, but I very much doubt it. The thing is they have actually found more Mayan calandar anyway. Mayans believe in cycles of change not catastrophe.

<quoted text>I think you believe that afarensis could talk and was a biblical person. That was what the last person that spoke of begats to me had to say.You do realize, don't you, that this is an evolution/creation debating thread. I also get sucked into talking philosophy with evos. Philosophy is much easier than science and one can chase around for years.The biblical end of days will come at a time unexpected. I'd say the Mayan calandar thing would qualify, but I very much doubt it. The thing is they have actually found more Mayan calandar anyway. Mayans believe in cycles of change not catastrophe.

Why? Don't you know? Of course deletion is not the only form of what evolutionists call a mutation.

Again, that has nothing to do with you lot getting all your hubris around junk dna wrong and creos getting a prediction validiated on the back of it. Neither has that anything to do with data that suggests the genome is deteriorating that also has nothing to do with non coding DNA per se. That is what my point 1 is about. You want to chase around with nonsense just to justify your existence here!

You cannot refute me. No 'junk' validates a creo prediction and is support for a creationist paradigm. Evos got it wrong, should not have shoved it at creos as evidence for TOE in the first place, and will now toddle off an invent some story to explain why the oppposite of what they thought still supports TOE.

Now I see evobabble questions are the strategy of choice to engage with my point 1 of 6 supports for a creationist paradigm, is that it?

Regarding the Mayan calendar, I think it goes back to a time just after the flood. I believe there were giants on earth in the days before the flood and they knew about earth cycles, their science was accurate and they were renown men who lived to be hundreds of years of age. Noah had a son Ham who had a son Cush who begat Nimrod and I believe he spread his kingdom throughout the world. I believe the altar that Noah built just after the flood remained a part of Nimrods kingdom and misguided religious practices in the form of pyramids. The calander was accurate and Nimrod spread his religion and science which reached Mexico by ocean current travel from China and on through South America by the chosen priest. We all know that they said they were trying to make a name for themselves lest they would be scattered upon the face of the whole earth (GEN 11) and the LORD did scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

<quoted text>As slavery was a fact of the day.Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."I've never owned and will never own a slave. I've also never built an ark hung anyone on a cross killed my children for disobedience stoned anyone (with a rock) beaten my wife owned a donkey fled with my people from Egypt or raped nor do I think rape is ok.I do not agree with slavery or genocide.The things Moses set into law where brutal to say the least the things God told them to do I don't agree with.God didn't and isn't going to ask my opinion before he does or says things. So what do you want me to do about it?

Moses did not set anything into law. They are god's laws and jesus said that you must follow them.

What do I want you to do about it? Nothing! You did as much as I could ask for. You said that your god's laws are brutal. I would add, they are evil. I don't waste my time hoping that you would admit that!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.